All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (legal scenarios) was that the Defendants demanded the president of the O Urban Development Association (hereinafter “the instant association”) to hand over the duties of the president of the association, and there was a remaining fact, but the Defendants were dismissed from the president of the association at the special general meeting on July 11, 2012, which was the relocation of the instant association, and Defendant A was appointed as a new president of the association, and thus, the Defendants cannot be deemed to interfere with the duties of the president of the association. The Defendants did not have any intention to interfere with the duties of the president of the association; ② the Defendants were mistaken for that act; ③ the Defendants’ act was conducted according to the resolution to dismiss the president of the association; and ③ the Defendants’ act was not in violation of the social rules, and thus, there was no illegality.

2. Determination

A. If the board of directors convened by a person who is not a legitimate convening authority pursuant to the law or the articles of incorporation with respect to the assertion that the act does not constitute a interference with business or that there was no intention to interfere with business, and only a part of the directors attended and passed a resolution, the resolution of the board of directors shall be invalid

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Du2949, Feb. 11, 2000). On the other hand, in the crime of interference with business, the criminal intent of interference with business does not necessarily require the intention of interference with business or planned interference with business, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing the result that the business of another person would be interfere with by his own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also indefinitely recognized.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9410 Decided January 15, 2009). Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, P refers to March 26, 2006.